Meds wrote:
You mean the shit that he hasn't really done much of since 2010?

He didn't bite anyone's finger. If you drink the Bruins' KoolAid your an idiot.

LOL.

You're always good for a laugh Meds.

p.s.________Burrows pulled Kessel's hair earlier this year.

Look - I'm not like Blob and Island Nucklehead that hates Burrows with a passion. I love many aspects of Burrows' game. I just don't like the weasely stuff. I felt the same way about Matt Cooke. I loved many aspects of Cooke's game while he was here, but absolutely hated the cheap shot stuff.

mathonwy wrote:
Money's money dude. And the rich don't become rich by giving it away.

... and they stay rich by knowing when to cut their losses.

I agree with that.

Not knowing Aquaman at all, It's a bit hard to try to guess at what his decision making process will be when it comes to Torterella. If he's a business first type of person, then Torts stays. Franky has built up an incredible amount of good will in this city and he knows that the fans will ultimately go along with whatever happens (because we have no choice).

Strangelove wrote:
Math, I mean this in the nicest possible way but... are you gay??

WAKE UP GOMER PYLE!!!

Oh Strange, I'm not sure if I'm having a serious conversation with you or not as neither being gay nor being in the army has any bearing on the concepts of leadership and motivation when it comes to coaching and running a hockey team.

If serious, then I want to clarify your arguments that you are using to support your supposition that Torts is a good coach.

a) The National Hockey League is a real man's league and the definition of a man is that he is heterosexual and responds positively to positive punishment motivational techniques (yelling).

b) The National Hockey League culture is similar to that of the Canadian army where one enlists (and gives up all of their rights as a civilian) and goes through a gruelling boot camp (and associated hazing rituals) and does army stuff.

Same ownership that didn't want to buy out Luongo forcing a CS trade is going to buy out Torts after one year? I don't see it. I can see a real tough off season for Torts and MG trying to get on the same page but I can't see them firing anyone and paying them to not work. Not this year. I think they will sell the injury problem real hard and next season will be the tell all.

Hockey Widow wrote:Same ownership that didn't want to buy out Luongo forcing a CS trade is going to buy out Torts after one year? I don't see it. I can see a real tough off season for Torts and MG trying to get on the same page but I can't see them firing anyone and paying them to not work. Not this year. I think they will sell the injury problem real hard and next season will be the tell all.

That's a low down shitty shame if that's how it pans out... but you might be right.

MG referenced AV, said people didn't think he could change and he did. I took that to mean well, ok, Torts has had his year and it didn't work but he will be given a chance to change and get on the same page with the GM, not the GM, managing for his coach but his coach coaching a style the GM wants.

So my take is if MG isn't fired he will have some very frank discussions with Torts. If Torts wants to stay he will have to change his coaching style.

Now if ownership wants Torts and don't like the balls MG is trying to grow then MG will be gone and we could be in for a world of hurt. We don't have the type of team to play a Torts game.

Also heard a little nugget the other day. MG was none to pleased with how the Luongo situation went down. Something about being blown away that Torts could open that door again. By the time the coaching decision for the Heritage Classic had been made and conveyed to Luongo it was too late for MG to intervene, the damage had been done. The assumption, the plan, barring injuries, was to have Luongo play that game. MG likes Lack and is high on him but the plan was to try and move Luongo this summer or next.

Hockey Widow wrote:
So I take it that there is a little tension in here.

You are a world of great news!!! I kid, I kid... I think... I heard rumblings that Gillis is involved in other dealings with ownership (aside from the Canucks), is there any truth to that? Could that save his job (or be the reason he has one in the first place)??

I guess the real question is WTF is up with these owners?! They bring MG in to do a job, and then they step right over him to hire a coach that proceeds to ramrod his roster into a team almost completely opposite to his style?

Fucks sake, put the guy out of his misery, or let's get on with this thing.

The Aqua group have shown themselves to be extremely piss-poor to this stage. How about they stick to building buildings and let the hockey team keep making them money? Either support your GM or fire him. You wanted an up-tempo style, and he forced it on the previous coach. You wanted a hard-ass as a coach, at least demand the same style of play!

Hockey Widow wrote:
So I take it that there is a little tension in here.

You are a world of great news!!! I kid, I kid... I think... I heard rumblings that Gillis is involved in other dealings with ownership (aside from the Canucks), is there any truth to that? Could that save his job (or be the reason he has one in the first place)??

I guess the real question is WTF is up with these owners?! They bring MG in to do a job, and then they step right over him to hire a coach that proceeds to ramrod his roster into a team almost completely opposite to his style?

Fucks sake, put the guy out of his misery, or let's get on with this thing.

The Aqua group have shown themselves to be extremely piss-poor to this stage. How about they stick to building buildings and let the hockey team keep making them money? Either support your GM or fire him. You wanted an up-tempo style, and he forced it on the previous coach. You wanted a hard-ass as a coach, at least demand the same style of play!

I have no idea if he has any other business dealings with FA and company. But I think we have to remember that he signed on for this. Right from the start he talked about decisions being group decisions. He has always said that everyone is involved. Whether he knew the full extent of what that meant who knows but he knew what he was getting into.

My sense is that he is seeing it fall apart and is trying to flex some muscle. How much of that is his trying to salvage his own reputation or how much of it is him seeing the direction we are heading and not wanting to go there we will see.

No matter how it comes out he will publicly always defend the owners rights. As it should be. This isn't a situation where a new owner inherited him. He signed on almost from the start so you have to assume he knew what the job would entail.

Dave Nonis had the balls to not pull the trigger to make the Richards deal when he was told to get him at any price. At the time that price was said to be Edler, Raymond, #1 and something else. Failing to do that then failing to make the playoffs cost him his job. He wasn't the "team" player owners wanted. MG came aboard saying he was that team player.

I heard MG was replacing Nonis before the press got wind, reported it on the other CC. I heard Torts was going to get hired before AV was fired. Reported that here. Both those leaks came from ownership sources. I have no doubt Torts was an ownership push. I still don't know why but I know he wasn't high on MG's list. I also don't know of any other team that has had group interviews involving the GM and the owners for a coaching hire.

I also have a good source who said that ownership prohibited a Luongo buyout. They also prohibited MG keeping salary back in the Leaf deal. MG was basically told if he could not move Luongo he had to move CS. And that process started about 48 hours before the draft. We all heard the rumblings especial 24 hours leading up to the draft. MG could not move Luongo without a salary hold back and had to do what he did. Well I guess he could have quit.

My point is that ownership is most definitely involved in team management. How they respond in the face of what MG is now saying will be telling. They will either give him one more chance and full reign or they will fire him. I don't think MG wants the middle ground anymore.

If he gets his mandate I don't see firing Torts as a given. He will have some candid and frank discussions with Torts. If Torts is on board he too will be given another chance but perhaps a short leash.

Hockey Widow wrote:
I also have a good source who said that ownership prohibited a Luongo buyout. They also prohibited MG keeping salary back in the Leaf deal. MG was basically told if he could not move Luongo he had to move CS. And that process started about 48 hours before the draft. We all heard the rumblings especial 24 hours leading up to the draft. MG could not move Luongo without a salary hold back and had to do what he did. Well I guess he could have quit.

If true, this seriously depresses me. Makes sense, given the timeline of the CS trade. I thought we were one of the "rich" teams...

Highly doubt Gillis quits. That's a lot of money to leave on the table...

My point is that ownership is most definitely involved in team management. How they respond in the face of what MG is now saying will be telling. They will either give him one more chance and full reign or they will fire him. I don't think MG wants the middle ground anymore.

If he gets his mandate I don't see firing Torts as a given. He will have some candid and frank discussions with Torts. If Torts is on board he too will be given another chance but perhaps a short leash.

The only difference between us and the Islanders is our recent history of winning records, and if the ownership think they know better than 'hockey folk' then we're heading in that direction. Deeply, deeply, concerning as a fan.